Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Fix sched_wakeup tracepoint

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 13:23 +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> OK, so considering the definition naming feedback you provided, we
> may need a 3 tracepoint if we want to calculate both wakeup latency
> and scheduling latency (naming ofc open to discussion):
> 
> sched_wakeup: when try_to_wake_up{,_local} is called in the waker.
> sched_activate_task: when the wakee is marked runnable.
> sched_switch: when scheduling actually happens.

I would propose:

	sched_waking: upon calling try_to_wake_up() as soon as we know we need
to change state; guaranteed to be called from the context doing the
wakeup.

	sched_woken: the wakeup is complete (task is runnable, any delay
between this and actually getting on a cpu is down to the scheduler).

	sched_switch: when switching from task @prev to @next.

This means abandoning trace_sched_wakeup(); which might be a problem,
which is why I bloody hate tracepoints :-(

> We can then calculate wakeup latency as
> 
>   time@sched_activate - time@sched_wakeup
> 
> And scheduling latency as
> 
>   time@sched_switch - time@sched_activate
> 
> In the case of critical path analysis, we don't care about this
> level of granularity. What we care about is is sum of the two,
> which we can express as:
> 
>   time@sched_switch - time@sched_wakeup
> 
> Is there an officially blessed name for this ?

No idea.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/